anyone know? I have never seen this publisized.

 

Hmmmm.... I'm completely undecided here.

 

what are you talking about

 

care to elaborate?

 

[this is a perfectly reasonable question, folks]

19.4 square feet, at least for early C4s

 

Oh, that type of area.

 

It's relevant for measuring rolling resistance, etc.

 

Not sure what you are referring to.

 

I'll take it...do you take PayPal?

 

I've never seen this mentioned here before.

 

uh...... ¿hablas inglés?

 

What is a frontal?

 

Full Frontal Nudity???

where? WHERE???

 

 

No...only for calculating aero drag. Rolling resistance is another issue.

Larry
code5coupe

 

Oog, sorry...I'll defer to Larry - it's been a long time since I've seen those formulas.

 

This thread has exposed some ignorance in its users and misunderstanding of concepts. I hope that since 2006 more people are here and knowledgeable. The part that stands out is that comments are from people listed as senior member. Maybe they weren't at the time. Either way, it appears "senior member" is not related to the knowledge level of that member. There could be a designation on user profile that a viewer can distinguish a casual fan from a master technician. I would recommend it.

I'm not trying to be negative but the thinking person who has passed 3rd grade should be able to figure out that "frontal area of a c4" refers to the measurement of area of an object (a c4) when viewing its front side.

My motive is to help improve the site and the people; not to insult. When someone reveals he/she didn't understand something simple causing the viewer is thinking "really, you had to ask? You couldn't, as an adult, figure that out on your own or you made no attempt to think." then who is insulting who? I'm simply the messenger pointing out what is obvious to some. This explains the "Originally Posted by j3studio [this is a perfectly reasonable question, folks]"

 

And just why did you drag this old thread out of the archives? I hope you don't go looking for every morsel of "confused members". You'll be a very busy guy!!

 

Correction about rolling resistance. See the wiki page on it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance

Larry seems to be referring to tires rolling resistance as rolling resistance is most commonly mentioned when discussing tires in my experience of reading. But resistance is not limited to the tires.

Defining it is important.

When discussing wheeled vehicles a definition could include "any force or resistance to the movement of a vehicle". Not limiting it to a round object rolling on ground. That is where aerodynamics come in as air resist the movement of all vehicles depending on speed.

He is right about area is part of aerodynamic calculations.

Just correcting for the record and those who may read this in search of, like me, the measurement so I can do calculations. The front area size does affect the rolling resistance of a vehicle.

Suppose a piece of metal shaped as with the area of a flat front semi-truck was wielded to the front of a C4 and the unchanged. Would it fuel usage be the same? Would its top speed be the same or slower? Would It's acceleration be the same or slower?

In case the link disappears the following is from the wiki on rolling resistance.

"Definitions[edit]

In the broad sense, specific "rolling resistance" (for vehicles) is the force per unit vehicle weight required to move the vehicle on level ground at a constant slow speed where aerodynamic drag (air resistance) is insignificant and also where there are no traction (motor) forces or brakes applied. In other words, the vehicle would be coasting if it were not for the force to maintain constant speed.[8] This broad sense includes wheel bearing resistance, the energy dissipated by vibration and oscillation of both the roadbed and the vehicle, and sliding of the wheel on the roadbed surface (pavement or a rail).

But there is an even broader sense that would include energy wasted by wheel slippage due to the torque applied from the engine. This includes the increased power required due to the increased velocity of the wheels where the tangential velocity of the driving wheel(s) becomes greater than the vehicle speed due to slippage. Since power is equal to force times velocity and the wheel velocity has increased, the power required has increased accordingly.

The pure "rolling resistance" for a train is that which happens due to deformation and possible minor sliding at the wheel-road contact.[9] For a rubber tire, an analogous energy loss happens over the entire tire, but it is still called "rolling resistance". In the broad sense, "rolling resistance" includes wheel bearing resistance, energy loss by shaking both the roadbed (and the earth underneath) and the vehicle itself, and by sliding of the wheel, road/rail contact. Railroad textbooks seem to cover all these resistance forces but do not call their sum "rolling resistance" (broad sense) as is done in this article. They just sum up all the resistance forces (including aerodynamic drag) and call the sum basic train resistance (or the like).[10]

Since railroad rolling resistance in the broad sense may be a few times larger than just the pure rolling resistance[11] reported values may be in serious conflict since they may be based on different definitions of "rolling resistance". The train's engines must, of course, provide the energy to overcome this broad-sense rolling resistance.

For tires, rolling resistance is defined as the energy consumed by a tire per unit distance covered. It is also called rolling friction or rolling drag. It is one of the forces that act to oppose the motion of a driver. The main reason for this is that when the tires are in motion and touch the surface, the surface changes shape and causes deformation of the tire.[12]

For highway motor vehicles, there is obviously some energy dissipated in shaking the roadway (and the earth beneath it), the shaking of the vehicle itself, and the sliding of the tires. But, other than the additional power required due to torque and wheel bearing friction, non-pure rolling resistance doesn't seem to have been investigated, possibly because the "pure" rolling resistance of a rubber tire is several times higher than the neglected resistances.[13]"

 

Hi, your hope won't be in vain as I don't seek as you say "confused members". Actually I was making suggestions that would be helpful to people. Not all people but hopefully someone. That's my purpose- to help.

I wasn't seeking out comments from archives. I was seeking the measurement of frontal area of a c4 and this was in the top results. That simple. It's just that the response struck a nerve.